§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any confirmation of the statements that the Russo-Chinese Bank—that is, practically, the Russian Government—is endeavouring to obtain by means of a railway loan the control of the sole railway from the north of China to Pekin; whether Russia has obtained from the Chinese the right to continue the Ching-ting Tai- 416 yuen-fu Railway, south-west of Pekin, to the Yellow River, near to Singan-fu, thus giving Russia practical control of the whole north of China; whether under Russo-French influence the Pekin-Hankow Railway is to be completed by Belgian contractors under Franco-Russian control; whether, when these railways are finished on the terms agreed, Russia will have control of all the railways along which it will be possible to move troops for the defence of Pekin; and what steps Her Majesty's Government, in view of these menacing facts, propose to take to prevent northern China from falling under the power of Russia?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,) Lancashire, SouthportThe latest information received by Her Majesty's Government, so far from corroborating the success of the endeavours of the Russo-Chinese Bank mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question, is to the effect that a preliminary agreement, for the extension of the northern line of railway between Pekin and Newchwang was signed yesterday between the representatives of a British syndicate and the Chinese Director-General of Railways. As regards the railways mentioned in the second paragraph, an agreement has been arrived at between the Anglo-Italian. Chinese Syndicate, who own large mining concessions in Shansi, and the Russo-Chinese Bank for the construction by the latter of the Ching-ting Tai-yuen-fu Railway. But we have not heard of any prolongation to Singan-fu. As regards the Pekin-Hankow Railway, the latest information we have received from Sir Claude MacDonald on the subject was communicated by me to the House in reply to a Question on June 9th. In these circumstances, the occasion for answering the fourth Question does not appear to arise.